"Jewish lobby" --, is the term a neologism? Options

[mephistophilis]

Here's some more amusing Jayjg hypocrisy in the "Jewish lobby" article:

"It's not a neologism? I can't find it in any standard dictionaries."18:01, 30 March 2007
""Jewish lobby" isn't a neologism? Great, please direct me to the standard dictionary entry where I can read about this term, then."02:52, 9 January 2008
"A neologism ceases to be a neologism when it gains wide acceptance and becomes a part of common speech. And the way you know that has happened is when you find it in standard dictionaries or encyclopedias." 04:24, 16 January 2008

So he rejects the use of the (widespread) expression "Jewish lobby" because it is a neologism.

But what if we look at his views on a different topic, yes, our old friend "Pallywood":

"Pallywood is a unique term discussing a unique phenomenon not covered by or distorted by this name. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC) "

"The ball here is whether or WP:NEO applies. You claim it applies here, yet edit in violation of it elsewhere. Which is it to be? Please state your viewpoints explicitly, so we know how seriously to take your alleged concern. Jayjg (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)"

"It was a nice try, though. BTW, I still get 126,000 Google hits for "Pallywood". On the other hand, I only get 629 Google hits for "hafrada"; now that's an original research dicdef begging to be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"

Yep, "Jewish lobby" (162,000 hits if you're interested) is an anti-semitic neologism, but "Pallywood" (90,600, must be getting less popular now there are less wikipedia scrapers) is an objective descriptive term. Of course if you attempt to point out this double standard, then, as good old Arnon points out, you're wikilawyering, you know, trying to get others to follow the rules they hold you to, and thus you lose!

[Moulton]

Due to the hodgepodge of WP:Rules, every move except the null move is a technical violation of at least one WP:Rule. The winning way to play the WP MMPORG is to pick out the most appropriate WP:Rule to clobber your opponent with. In this regard, Tim Makinson (User:Hrafn) is my nominee for the Best WP MMPORG Game Player of 2007.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I think you have captured the essence here of what puts Jayjg in the top rank of Wikipedia admins: the ability to invoke Wikipedia rules in the most hypocritical way possible while pushing POV, and yet have the chutzpah to steamroll over anyone who calls attention to it.

[gomi]

In this way Jayjg is even more dangerous than SlimVirgin, at least within his chosen domain, because he actually thinks this way. However laden and offensive the term "Jewish Lobby" might be, it has been used for decades -- since at least the Truman administration. The end justifies the means, though, and since Jayjg considers the term part of the broad-based blood libel, out it must go.

[Moulton]

Perhaps we can have a category in the nominations for WP:DICK of the Year that covers this tendency to cherry pick WP:Rules to bash one's opponent, rather than applying the guidelines in a consistent manner to everyone (including oneself).

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Perhaps we can have a category in the nominations for WP:DICK of the Year that covers this tendency to cherry pick WP:Rules to bash one's opponent, rather than applying the guidelines in a consistent manner to everyone (including oneself).

Verily, what you describe is the very essence of DICKliness. It needs no special category -- indeed, no one could ascend to the upper ranks of WP without having mastered this basic skill.

[Moulton]

Aha.

So a WP:DICK is someone who blatantly and routinely violates WP:IAR and WP:Lawyering?

[Error59]

Aha.

So a WP:DICK is someone who blatantly and routinely violates WP:IAR and WP:Lawyering?

How does one violate "Ignore all rules"? By not ignoring them?

Jayjg isn't just a dick - he's dangerously schizophrenic. See here - "the ability to hold two opposing views simultaneously, an essential tool for the aspiring leader by which he can baffle first a constituency and later the whole electorate".

[guy]

How does one violate "Ignore all rules"? By not ignoring them?

Exactly. The principle is that we should ignore anything that gets in the way of improving Wikipedia; insisting on following the rules to the detriment of the project violates WP:IAR.

[Moulton]

I wish there were a feature like Ignore All Dicks.

Alas, one cannot, as they undermine the very ground one is standing on.

[dtobias]

An essential component is to have enough friends in high places among the WP Elite that anybody who points out your hypocrisy is labeled a troll, and ultimately banned if they persist.

[Saltimbanco]

I think Jayjg knows very well that he is being dishonest and duplicitous. It's his job to be dishonest and duplicitous when the situation demands it. What strains credulity is that so many people at Wikipedia, from Jimbo on down, pretend not to see it, and hold Jayjg up as a paragon of Wikipedia participation.

The most obvious explanation is that someone's palm is being crossed; perhaps one of the Hasbara organizations or one of their individual sponsors is a big donor to one aspect or another of Jimbo, Inc.

[mephistophilis]

The most obvious explanation is that someone's palm is being crossed; perhaps one of the Hasbara organizations or one of their individual sponsors is a big donor to one aspect or another of Jimbo, Inc.

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence. I think it is more likely that in the MMORPG that is wikipedia it is the social relationships that are important, once the connections have been made between Jimbo and Slim and Jay then they will go out of their way to look out for each other. Each of them has their own POV to push, but the others are more interested in the social solidarity than the actuall content.

[Proabivouac]

Well, I disagree with Jayjg on "Pallywood," and you're right that the lack of a tough and consistent standard is a recipe for endless bickering. He's hardly alone in this, which is what makes a principled solution - the deletion of all articles about terms and catchprases of political discourse rather than things which all agree exist.

The problem is that if one party proposes a consistent standard and demonstrates this by voting to delete their own articles, the other party just pockets the gain. Even if one editor plays honorably, it doesn't bind other editors in his faction.

This was clearly seen in the miserable "Israeli (etc.) Apartheid" debate. This is a classic example of an article that shouldn't exist, not because it's content should be "forbidden," but because encyclopedia's don't have articles about such things. Israel exists, Palestine exists, the West Bank exists, the barrier exists, etc. Apartheid existed, and doesn't need any national qualification - it wasn't metaphor, but the literal name of the policy.

But the legion of contributors who wants to use Wikipedia to criticize Israel (supported by the sock farm of now-banned administrator Maisonsurlagamme) are enough to prevent consensus to delete.
So cynically, a number of pro-Israeli editors created absurd articles about "Chinese Apartheid", "Cuban Apartheid", etc., then vote to keep unless all X Apartheid articles - including Israeli Apartheid - are deleted.

Double standards aren't necessarily signs of deep-set personal hypocrisy, but cynical adaptations to a dysfunctional system. Pretending that one is being consistent is part of this adaptation.

What's needed is some disinterested party to be handed the delete button and rid the stables of these "term" droppings without having to go through deletion votes. Alternately, change the standards for deletion so that lack of a clear consensus to keep defaults to delete. As it is, it's much, much easier to create partisan termcruft articles than it is to get rid of them - and much easier to create a controversially-themed article than to add controversial material to an existing legitimate article.

[gomi]

Several of us addressed the Pallywood article and a related article in this 10-month-old thread: Muhammad al-Durrah & WP:OWN, Slim & Jayjg tag-team again. That was, for me, a particularly heartbreaking example of the triumph of zealotry and bias on Wikipedia over common sense and goodwill.

[mephistophilis]

Several of us addressed the Pallywood article...

I'll repeat what I said in that thread:

"These articles, including things like Slim's own New antisemitism, represent the fairly new phenomenon of synthetic articles designed to advance some political agenda - they would never exist in a real encyclopedia because they are opinion pieces, editorials, which is why they are so controversial, their entire structure seeks to make some partisan point precluding any NPOV wording."

[Saltimbanco]

The most obvious explanation is that someone's palm is being crossed; perhaps one of the Hasbara organizations or one of their individual sponsors is a big donor to one aspect or another of Jimbo, Inc.

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence. I think it is more likely that in the MMORPG that is wikipedia it is the social relationships that are important, once the connections have been made between Jimbo and Slim and Jay then they will go out of their way to look out for each other. Each of them has their own POV to push, but the others are more interested in the social solidarity than the actuall content.

Very few people are as incompetent as you suggest. I don't buy it.

Well, I disagree with Jayjg on "Pallywood," and you're right that the lack of a tough and consistent standard is a recipe for endless bickering. He's hardly alone in this, which is what makes a principled solution - the deletion of all articles about terms and catchprases of political discourse rather than things which all agree exist.

The problem is that if one party proposes a consistent standard and demonstrates this by voting to delete their own articles, the other party just pockets the gain. Even if one editor plays honorably, it doesn't bind other editors in his faction.

This was clearly seen in the miserable "Israeli (etc.) Apartheid" debate. This is a classic example of an article that shouldn't exist, not because it's content should be "forbidden," but because encyclopedia's don't have articles about such things. Israel exists, Palestine exists, the West Bank exists, the barrier exists, etc. Apartheid existed, and doesn't need any national qualification - it wasn't metaphor, but the literal name of the policy.

But the legion of contributors who wants to use Wikipedia to criticize Israel (supported by the sock farm of now-banned administrator Maisonsurlagamme) are enough to prevent consensus to delete.
So cynically, a number of pro-Israeli editors created absurd articles about "Chinese Apartheid", "Cuban Apartheid", etc., then vote to keep unless all X Apartheid articles - including Israeli Apartheid - are deleted.

Double standards aren't necessarily signs of deep-set personal hypocrisy, but cynical adaptations to a dysfunctional system. Pretending that one is being consistent is part of this adaptation.

What's needed is some disinterested party to be handed the delete button and rid the stables of these "term" droppings without having to go through deletion votes. Alternately, change the standards for deletion so that lack of a clear consensus to keep defaults to delete. As it is, it's much, much easier to create partisan termcruft articles than it is to get rid of them - and much easier to create a controversially-themed article than to add controversial material to an existing legitimate article.

Smells like bullsh** to me.

[Jonny Cache]

Due to the hodgepodge of WP:Rules, every move except the null move is a technical violation of at least one WP:Rule.

No, the Null Move is a violation of WP:BEEBOLD!

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Lar]

Due to the hodgepodge of WP:Rules, every move except the null move is a technical violation of at least one WP:Rule. The winning way to play the WP MMPORG is to pick out the most appropriate WP:Rule to clobber your opponent with. In this regard, Tim Makinson (User:Hrafn) is my nominee for the Best WP MMPORG Game Player of 2007.

That sounds like you've been reading the rules for Mornington Crescent ....

[Proabivouac]

[Never mind, not worth responding to]

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: